That isn't even part of the debate, you just made a useless statement that had no bearing on anything said in this thread. I on the other hand addressed a post with facts that prove something to the contrary.

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:45 pmPosts: 26Location: United States of America

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:46 pm

Derigin wrote:

Witcher wrote:

Knjaz_Milos wrote:

Noisenoir wrote:

What I found rather ironic is the people of Kosovo celebrate their independance waving american and albanian flags..??..

Shows their real goal: one great Albania, or aka a Mafia-rogue state in the middle of Europe.Something in the interest of the US: they can have a military base there, and the Albanians continue to destabilize Europe with their drugs/arms/people-trafficking and the development of a extremist Muslim-state inside Europe.

Hence the US flags...

I am wondering if the Western world would also applaud an independent Hawaii, Scotland, Kurdistan or Basque Country, to only name a few??

Not to speak about the fact, that the Serbians in Northern Kosovo will never recognize the Albanian central government. You have other potential Palestina there.

It would be interesting to watch, if all the Mexicans living in California would crete and uprising to show their true heritage and to demand renewed sepearation from the U.S.A. and union with Mexico for historical reasons.

If the United States committed war crimes and ethnic cleansing of those Mexicans, and say the United States was a weak and unpopular power, than it's more than likely that the major powers in the world would be more willing to allow a separation. The reality with that example is that the United States is a strong sovereign power, and if there would be war crimes they would be hidden, masked to save face, or condemned with little power to do anything about it. The American people may lose faith in their government, but the state wouldn't fail.

In many way, it's a number of conditions which separate Kosovo's separation from those of other secessionist movements. Firstly, Yugoslavia had been an unpopular and weak state, compared to the rest of the world. Secessionist movements had already occurred. Throughout Yugoslavia there had been violence, and - despite a decent army - the government chose policies that were not well received by the rest of the world.

Secondly, because of how close Yugoslavia is to the rest of Europe, and of historical precedent in previous wars, any violence in Yugoslavia is a concern to the rest of Europe - especially given the situation after the fall of the Soviet Union. NATO would've been called in regardless. If this had been Africa, few governments would do anything about it. If this had been in the heart of Western Europe, North America or South America, the secessionist movement would've been squashed or universally condemned. More than likely, any violence would be considered terrorism, and the movements would be more inclined to be peaceful. The Balkans, being on the borderline of Europe, did not have that option. There were concerns that violence would spread outwards towards its neighboring weak states and into the rest of Europe.

Lastly, and most importantly, Yugoslavia used violence, war crimes and to a degree ethnic cleansing to try to solve the problem. Serbia now must contend with the blemish of such acts. Given the prior conditions, it's not tolerated. It's this which outweighs all historical or religious importance that Kosovo may have for Serbia. It's also what tends to separate most other secessionist movements (although, in strong states with high popularity there are cases of this, but they're usually downplayed for the sake of stability). It's for this reason, regardless if Russia pouts and other states are concerned, that an independent Kosovo is a reality. The West could not tolerate allowing Kosovo back into Serbia, especially given the majority (92%) do not want that. Nor would it necessarily be desired to have Kosovo and Albania 'formally' combine. Doing so would suggest the West wants to (publicly?) direct the sovereignty of other states.

As for the 4% of leftover Serbs. Despite many of them being poor and old, what will more likely happen is that North Kosovo will gain some autonomy within the state of Kosovo. The other majority enclave of Serbs, Štrpce, would more than likely be overrun by Albanians in little time.

Er you do realize the Albanians started the aggression in Kosovo right and no the ethnic cleansing is nowhere near as bad as it was portrayed in U.S.

In the 1980's the Socialist Autonomy of Kosovo government was run by Albanians and after Tito's death the Albanians in charge did everything possible to make it tough on the ethnic Serbian citizens to find jobs or get any help from the government. Thats when Milosevic started rising to power and getting most of the Serbs to support him with his nationalistic message aimed at Kosovo. After Yugoslavia broke up and the war started between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnian Muslims the Albanians in Kosovo started losing their position in the government and thats when terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing on the Serb citizens there started. In 1999 Serbian troops were deployed to Kosovo and sure they killed a lot of innocent Albanians but then again this hardly holds your argument that Serbs are the aggressor here. Truth is there is none and you should learn some facts or shut the fuck up.

Fucking moron.......

_________________

Noktorn wrote:

One time I was listening to Gorgoroth and then the police beat me for being black, so I guess that sort of counts.

Er you do realize the Albanians started the aggression in Kosovo right and no the ethnic cleansing is nowhere near as bad as it was portrayed in U.S.

In the 1980's the Socialist Autonomy of Kosovo government was run by Albanians and after Tito's death the Albanians in charge did everything possible to make it tough on the ethnic Serbian citizens to find jobs or get any help from the government. Thats when Milosevic started rising to power and getting most of the Serbs to support him with his nationalistic message aimed at Kosovo. After Yugoslavia broke up and the war started between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnian Muslims the Albanians in Kosovo started losing their position in the government and thats when terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing on the Serb citizens there started. In 1999 Serbian troops were deployed to Kosovo and sure they killed a lot of innocent Albanians but then again this hardly holds your argument that Serbs are the aggressor here. Truth is there is none and you should learn some facts or shut the fuck up.

Fucking moron.......

This rivalry has its roots back in WWII. Muslims (Albanians and Bosnians) sided with Hitler and Christians (Serbs and Croatians) sided with the Allies. This rivalry did not ended in Yugoslavia and it still continues to exist till this very day.

Thorgrim, the American people may have given money to those who was in need. However, Bush would be the last person in Earth to ever do something (or any goverment for that reason). All the money for such situations come from taxes and not from the pockets of the governors.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Thorgrim, the American people may have given money to those who was in need. However, Bush would be the last person in Earth to ever do something (or any goverment for that reason). All the money for such situations come from taxes and not from the pockets of the governors.

False, it has been documented that the US government and many others have given aid.

Thorgrim, the American people may have given money to those who was in need. However, Bush would be the last person in Earth to ever do something (or any goverment for that reason). All the money for such situations come from taxes and not from the pockets of the governors.

False, it has been documented that the US government and many others have given aid.

Money that came out of taxes.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

That isn't even part of the debate, you just made a useless statement that had no bearing on anything said in this thread. I on the other hand addressed a post with facts that prove something to the contrary.

You are actually right about my post, but can you really say that I am wrong about Bush? Concerning Kosovo can anyone explain the eagerness of the U.S to recognise a state in the Balkans that can only provide destabilisation? This happen at my doorstep not his ranch. All those who are against have serious reasons. Russia consists by many ethnicities and justifiably worries about them taking examble from Kosovo. Palestinians consider the one-sided proclaimation of independancy, here in Greece we have the F.Y.R.O.M. issue and there's already been an attack on our embassy in Skopia on monday. So I find it completely relevant that a man that takes a break(!!!) from his vacation to announce anything serious for other countries that he has not a clue of, is gravely upseting especially when his next "break" could be about the Balkans.

That isn't even part of the debate, you just made a useless statement that had no bearing on anything said in this thread. I on the other hand addressed a post with facts that prove something to the contrary.

You are actually right about my post, but can you really say that I am wrong about Bush? Concerning Kosovo can anyone explain the eagerness of the U.S to recognise a state in the Balkans that can only provide destabilisation? This happen at my doorstep not his ranch. All those who are against have serious reasons. Russia consists by many ethnicities and justifiably worries about them taking examble from Kosovo. Palestinians consider the one-sided proclaimation of independancy, here in Greece we have the F.Y.R.O.M. issue and there's already been an attack on our embassy in Skopia on monday. So I find it completely relevant that a man that takes a break(!!!) from his vacation to announce anything serious for other countries that he has not a clue of, is gravely upseting especially when his next "break" could be about the Balkans.

I agree in the Bush matter. He obsiously does not care for anything. No governor ever cared for anything.

But actually I don't mind an independent Kosovo. As I've said many times the smaller the states the better. I'm also in for the independence of Northern Epirus.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

That isn't even part of the debate, you just made a useless statement that had no bearing on anything said in this thread. I on the other hand addressed a post with facts that prove something to the contrary.

You are actually right about my post, but can you really say that I am wrong about Bush? Concerning Kosovo can anyone explain the eagerness of the U.S to recognise a state in the Balkans that can only provide destabilisation? This happen at my doorstep not his ranch. All those who are against have serious reasons. Russia consists by many ethnicities and justifiably worries about them taking examble from Kosovo. Palestinians consider the one-sided proclaimation of independancy, here in Greece we have the F.Y.R.O.M. issue and there's already been an attack on our embassy in Skopia on monday. So I find it completely relevant that a man that takes a break(!!!) from his vacation to announce anything serious for other countries that he has not a clue of, is gravely upseting especially when his next "break" could be about the Balkans.

I agree in the Bush matter. He obsiously does not care for anything. No governor ever cared for anything.

But actually I don't mind an independent Kosovo. As I've said many times the smaller the states the better. I'm also in for the independence of Northern Epirus.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have a use for countries or states or even borders but instead we live in an age of greed which inflames conflict and every incident that promotes conflict just puts another nail in humanity's coffin.
And has anyone noticed the decadence of the worlds leaders both moral and intelectual?

That isn't even part of the debate, you just made a useless statement that had no bearing on anything said in this thread. I on the other hand addressed a post with facts that prove something to the contrary.

You are actually right about my post, but can you really say that I am wrong about Bush? Concerning Kosovo can anyone explain the eagerness of the U.S to recognise a state in the Balkans that can only provide destabilisation? This happen at my doorstep not his ranch. All those who are against have serious reasons. Russia consists by many ethnicities and justifiably worries about them taking examble from Kosovo. Palestinians consider the one-sided proclaimation of independancy, here in Greece we have the F.Y.R.O.M. issue and there's already been an attack on our embassy in Skopia on monday. So I find it completely relevant that a man that takes a break(!!!) from his vacation to announce anything serious for other countries that he has not a clue of, is gravely upseting especially when his next "break" could be about the Balkans.

I agree in the Bush matter. He obsiously does not care for anything. No governor ever cared for anything.

But actually I don't mind an independent Kosovo. As I've said many times the smaller the states the better. I'm also in for the independence of Northern Epirus.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have a use for countries or states or even borders but instead we live in an age of greed which inflames conflict and every incident that promotes conflict just puts another nail in humanity's coffin. And has anyone noticed the decadence of the worlds leaders both moral and intelectual?

The perfect world my friend does not exist. Nothing can be perfect. But still we can improve our world (via philosophy). So why not give it a try? We clearly do not have anything to lose.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Er you do realize the Albanians started the aggression in Kosovo right and no the ethnic cleansing is nowhere near as bad as it was portrayed in U.S.

In the 1980's the Socialist Autonomy of Kosovo government was run by Albanians and after Tito's death the Albanians in charge did everything possible to make it tough on the ethnic Serbian citizens to find jobs or get any help from the government. Thats when Milosevic started rising to power and getting most of the Serbs to support him with his nationalistic message aimed at Kosovo. After Yugoslavia broke up and the war started between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnian Muslims the Albanians in Kosovo started losing their position in the government and thats when terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing on the Serb citizens there started. In 1999 Serbian troops were deployed to Kosovo and sure they killed a lot of innocent Albanians but then again this hardly holds your argument that Serbs are the aggressor here. Truth is there is none and you should learn some facts or shut the fuck up.

Fucking moron.......

Whether or not what you say is valid or not, it's perception that matters. And to the West, the Yugoslavia government and military under Milošević were the aggressors. Given that this is the case, the Serbs were the ones being blamed. In the UN sanctioned ICTY, it is mostly Serbs whom are being indicted with war crimes. It does not matter if this is disproportional, or if the Serbs under Milošević's government were less aggressive, it all matters how the strong states of the West view this situation.

To most of the outside world, Serbia (viewed as the successor state of that Yugoslavia) is viewed more negatively than other states, because of the perception of the Serbs having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Albanians in Kosovo are generally seen as more righteous, especially after the NATO intervention in part to protect them.

When it comes to Kosovo, portrayal matters more than 'fact'. I stand by everything I said.

Perhaps. It seemed, given that it was at the end of his statement, and there's an underlying assertion that invalidity is tied to being moronic, that it could be ad hominem abusive. You're probably more correct than I to call it an insult, though.

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:45 pmPosts: 26Location: United States of America

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:06 am

Derigin wrote:

Thrasher86 wrote:

Er you do realize the Albanians started the aggression in Kosovo right and no the ethnic cleansing is nowhere near as bad as it was portrayed in U.S.

In the 1980's the Socialist Autonomy of Kosovo government was run by Albanians and after Tito's death the Albanians in charge did everything possible to make it tough on the ethnic Serbian citizens to find jobs or get any help from the government. Thats when Milosevic started rising to power and getting most of the Serbs to support him with his nationalistic message aimed at Kosovo. After Yugoslavia broke up and the war started between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnian Muslims the Albanians in Kosovo started losing their position in the government and thats when terrorist attacks and ethnic cleansing on the Serb citizens there started. In 1999 Serbian troops were deployed to Kosovo and sure they killed a lot of innocent Albanians but then again this hardly holds your argument that Serbs are the aggressor here. Truth is there is none and you should learn some facts or shut the fuck up.

Fucking moron.......

Whether or not what you say is valid or not, it's perception that matters. And to the West, the Yugoslavia government and military under Milošević were the aggressors. Given that this is the case, the Serbs were the ones being blamed. In the UN sanctioned ICTY, it is mostly Serbs whom are being indicted with war crimes. It does not matter if this is disproportional, or if the Serbs under Milošević's government were less aggressive, it all matters how the strong states of the West view this situation.

To most of the outside world, Serbia (viewed as the successor state of that Yugoslavia) is viewed more negatively than other states, because of the perception of the Serbs having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Albanians in Kosovo are generally seen as more righteous, especially after the NATO intervention in part to protect them.

When it comes to Kosovo, portrayal matters more than 'fact'. I stand by everything I said.

Also, next time lay off the ad hominem, thanks.

Eh sorry for the harsh words I misunderstood your post, I myself am Croatian and I am extremely sick of the flawed portrayal of the Kosovo situation and thought you were just another of the foreigners taking whatever the Western media says as fact. However while in my opinion Serbia deserves most of the blame for the Yugoslav war with Croatia and especially the attrocities in Bosnia, they don't deserve to be painted as the aggressor when it comes to the conflict with Albanians in Kosovo.

And Mors Gloria, yes its true that Albanians were in Kosovo during WWII and there was some aggression even then, but they were not a huge majority back then as they are and the mass immigration during the 1960's is when they started taking over the province. Because of Tito's disapproval of Albanian harsh Stalinist government the illegal immigrants that came in were given Yugoslav citizenships and were integrated into the society, and this is where the problem evolved with now Albanians becoming a majority with a 90/10 split. And while I agree that they deserved same rights as any other citizen of Yugoslavia and later Serbia, they still don't have the right to split away just because they are a majority.

_________________

Noktorn wrote:

One time I was listening to Gorgoroth and then the police beat me for being black, so I guess that sort of counts.

Thorgrim, the American people may have given money to those who was in need. However, Bush would be the last person in Earth to ever do something (or any goverment for that reason). All the money for such situations come from taxes and not from the pockets of the governors.

False, it has been documented that the US government and many others have given aid.

Money that came out of taxes.

A lot of money that the government has comes from taxes otherwise they don't have any, and thus can't do anything.
At least they aren't spending it on the construction of some new superbomb, which they will never use, or spending it on "research" how fish that live at the bottom of the ocean, have intercourse....

I didn't knew that about Croatians. Anyway, thanks for the correction.

By the way, Greek guerillas fought against Hitler as well in that reason (mainly in the Albanian mountains).

Actually thats not entirely correct either, the Croatians didn't side with Hitler but when Yugoslavia was invaded Germany instilled a puppet regime run by Ante Pavelic and his Ustase party in Croatia, same thing with Serbia where they had a government run by a Nazi supporter Milan Nedic. The Serbs who originally fought against the Nazi occupators decided to make a deal with them and not attack each other, and instead focus on the Partizans a movement which started in Croatia and Slovenia and then spread to Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. So in turn majority of actual Croats who weren't forced to fight where on the side of the Partisans and against the Nazi's.

_________________

Noktorn wrote:

One time I was listening to Gorgoroth and then the police beat me for being black, so I guess that sort of counts.

divide and conquer.the same old game:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them. USA gov never gave a shit about human rights and such things, but only rhetorically to excuse foreighn policy. the only reason for a new independent country is this:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them and the same time another puppet willing to save the american interests in the geopolitical game.

divide and conquer.the same old game:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them. USA gov never gave a shit about human rights and such things, but only rhetorically to excuse foreighn policy. the only reason for a new independent country is this:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them and the same time another puppet willing to save the american interests in the geopolitical game.

Unfortunately I cannot disagree with this. I really like the idea of smaller states but it is almost sure that those smaller states in this given time will be used as protectorats

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

The US has done many good things for Kosovo in the past, they love America over there.

It's one of the places I could've been deployed to. I wish it still was. I'd much rather deal with political dissidents in European-infused Kosovo than religious fuckbags at Earth's Asshole Iraq where I'm actually going to be deployed.

Hotter chicks in Kosovo than Iraq, too. Thems some hookers worth the money!

I am wondering if the Western world would also applaud an independent Hawaii, Scotland, Kurdistan or Basque Country, to only name a few??

I would.

Very much so.

Not sure about globalist politicians, though.

Allow me add my voice to this chorus. In general, I applaud the independence of any state or polity that wishes it--particularly in the case of the Kurds and Basques. Apart from the pride of some Spaniards and Turks, who would it hurt? I'm frankly suprised Texas is still part of the US, and Hawaii has every reason to leave the U.S. and few reasons to remain part of it.

I of course support an independent Tibet (just can't STAND the PRC), Palestine (really with few restrictions on what that would take), and Taiwan, as well, in addition to supporting an utter ban on Sharia law being practiced anywhere in the European Union for any reason whatsoever. When I see how hard some fight for their sovereignty, it appalls me the way some in Europe are so willing to cede theirs to what amounts to a slow invasion by extremist peoples and values.

On the other hand, I think the two majority Serb counties (or whatever) in N. Kosovo should remain Serbian territory. That's a no-brainer. And I utterly agree with whoever said that Albania is a major security and human rights problem.

Witcher wrote:

I have named Vatican as an example of miniature state with super authority.

And Israel, the size of Delaware, has about 200 thermonuclear devices and a new global delivery system for them. Why the hell do 7 million people need the ability to kill all of humanity? I'm not sure if that's "authority," but it's certainly not weakness.

YaY for the opium and prostitute slave traffickers! Now they have their own degenerate nation. Why can't metalheads do the same thing? Make our own degenerate metal nation of long hair, metal studs and beer!

YaY for the opium and prostitute slave traffickers! Now they have their own degenerate nation. Why can't metalheads do the same thing? Make our own degenerate metal nation of long hair, metal studs and beer!

I totally support this. We should also make a Punk nation and a Goth nation build them all in small distance and visit them every day

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Why would Texas become an independent country? My personal view (as someone not from America) of Texans (though probably a stereotype) is that those people a proud to call themselves americans...

In my experience, most would consider themselves Texans first and Americans second. Texan culture is very different from the rest of the country; nobody in Pennsylvania is all "rah-rah Pennsylvania" about it. Other states that have this independent streak (but, I think, to a lesser extent) as well, like Vermont, or Maine, or Alaska do exist, but really, you need to ask a Texan.

I didn't knew that about Croatians. Anyway, thanks for the correction.

By the way, Greek guerillas fought against Hitler as well in that reason (mainly in the Albanian mountains).

Actually thats not entirely correct either, the Croatians didn't side with Hitler but when Yugoslavia was invaded Germany instilled a puppet regime run by Ante Pavelic and his Ustase party in Croatia, same thing with Serbia where they had a government run by a Nazi supporter Milan Nedic.

I'm afraid that what you are stating here is not quite correct. There are various sources on this but for the ease of it I'll only link to Wikipedia:

Wiki on Croatia wrote:

The Axis occupation of Yugoslavia in 1941 allowed the Croatian radical right Ustaše to come into power, forming the "Independent State of Croatia", led by Ante Pavelić, who assumed the role of Poglavnik Nezavisne Drzave Hrvatske (i.e. Leader of the Independent State of Croatia). Following the pattern of other fascist regimes in Europe, the Ustashi enacted racial laws, formed eight concentration camps targeting minority Serbs, Romas and Jewish populations. The biggest concentration camp was Jasenovac in Croatia. The NDH had a program, formulated by Mile Budak, to purge Croatia of Serbs, by “killing one third, expelling the other third and assimilating the remaining third”. The first part of this program began during WWII with a planned genocide in Jasenovac and other locations in the NDH[6] The main targets for persecution, however, were the Serbs. Hundreds of thousands of Serbs are estimated to have been killed in this cycle of violence....

In the pretext to WW II, Prince Regent Paul signed a treaty with Hitler (as did Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary). However, a popular uprising amongst the people rejected this agreement and Prince Regent Paul was sent to exile. King Peter II assumed full royal duty....

The difference: in both regions puppet-governments were installed, but the Croatian one had major support among it's population, where the Serbian one did not have the support, the population resisted/fought it.

and also:

Thrasher86 wrote:

The Serbs who originally fought against the Nazi occupators decided to make a deal with them and not attack each other, and instead focus on the Partizans a movement which started in Croatia and Slovenia and then spread to Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. So in turn majority of actual Croats who weren't forced to fight where on the side of the Partisans and against the Nazi's.

There was no deal between Serbian resistance and Germany, nor is it that because Tito was a Croat (and he later on became the leader of the Partisans), that the Partizan movement started in Croatia. It more or less started simultaneously in several places.

Wiki wrote:

In April 1941, Yugoslavia was invaded by Nazi Germany. On July 30 the first rebels made their presence armed action was carried out. The participants then proceeded to Kopaonik and, together with other insurgents from the Ibar valley and the mountain villages, began the struggle against the occupation. On August 10, 1941 in Stanulović, a mountain village, they formed the Kopaonik Partisan Unit Headquarters. Their liberated area was called the Miners Republic and lasted 42 days. They joined the ranks of Tito and the Peoples Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia later on.

for your information: Kopaonik is one of the biggest mountain ranges of Serbia. It is located in the southern part of Central Serbia. As is the Ibar river.

And again Wiki wrote:

The ruthless attitude of the German occupation forces and the genocidal policy of the Croatian Ustaša regime, aimed at Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and anti-Ustaša Croats, created a strong anti-fascist resistance in the NDH. Many Serbs and other nationalities stood up against the genocide and the Nazis. Many joined the Partisan forces created by the Communist Party (National Liberation Army headed by Josip Broz Tito) in the liberation and the revolutionary war against Nazis and all the others who were against communism. There was another resistance movement, namely that of royalist General Dragoljub Draza Mihailovic, which was mostly active in Serbia, and among the Serbian people in Montenegro, Bosnia, Hercegovina. The Royalists fought the Ustashe and the Communists, as well as the Germans.

Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 10:17 pmPosts: 397Location: United States of America

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:18 pm

corpus_vile wrote:

divide and conquer.the same old game:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them. USA gov never gave a shit about human rights and such things, but only rhetorically to excuse foreighn policy. the only reason for a new independent country is this:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them and the same time another puppet willing to save the american interests in the geopolitical game.

I would think that is an unreasonably cynical view of the situation. While it is certainly true that US acts in its self-interest on several occasions under the guise of being a savior of democracy and freedom,in this case the human rights violation committed by Serbia is well accepted by the international community.

If the intention of the United States was just to split up a country, then one would have imagined protest from some EU nations. After all, didn't France and Germany, amongst several others, oppose invasion of Iraq? However, in this situation Kosovo got its recognition from these nations within 48 hours of declaring independence, an indication of the extent to which Serbia had lost its credibility.

Also remember NATO troops were deployed to prevent the Serbian atrocities on the ethnic Albanians in '99. Further, Milosevic was later found guilty on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Court of Justice. All this cannot be a grand plan hatched up by the West acting in unison to divide Serbia. In any case, how powerful and influential was united Serbia in contemporary world affairs for the West to try so hard?

This game is played both ways, now the Serbs accuse the Kosovo goverment for ethnic cleansing. Should we expect a N.A.T.O. bombing of Kosovo for the exact opposite reasons the first one took place? I seriously doubt it, the Serbian alliance and support ithey recieve from Russia is the thorn the U.S. is trying to remove...get it?

divide and conquer.the same old game:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them. USA gov never gave a shit about human rights and such things, but only rhetorically to excuse foreighn policy. the only reason for a new independent country is this:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them and the same time another puppet willing to save the american interests in the geopolitical game.

I would think that is an unreasonably cynical view of the situation. While it is certainly true that US acts in its self-interest on several occasions under the guise of being a savior of democracy and freedom,in this case the human rights violation committed by Serbia is well accepted by the international community.

If the intention of the United States was just to split up a country, then one would have imagined protest from some EU nations. After all, didn't France and Germany, amongst several others, oppose invasion of Iraq? However, in this situation Kosovo got its recognition from these nations within 48 hours of declaring independence, an indication of the extent to which Serbia had lost its credibility.

Also remember NATO troops were deployed to prevent the Serbian atrocities on the ethnic Albanians in '99. Further, Milosevic was later found guilty on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Court of Justice. All this cannot be a grand plan hatched up by the West acting in unison to divide Serbia. In any case, how powerful and influential was united Serbia in contemporary world affairs for the West to try so hard?

and since when US policy became so sensitive to the atrocities? the answer is this:since has interests in a particular area. do you remember the 1 million dead leftists in Indonesia in 1965? do you remember the genocide in East Timor in 1974? or the gas attacks against the Kurds by Saddam right after the first Gulf war? and just because i have a cynical view of the situation, do i have to remind you the cynical statement of Clinton during the days of massacre in Rwanda? "USA is not going to involve in regions with no anerican interests". do you remember Kirkpatrick's statement about Taliban in 1996? do i have to remind you the atrocities of dictators in latin America, dictators supported by the us gov? where was in all these cases the merciful people who decided to help the Albanians in Kosovo?
And please, stop thinking the EU as one concrete organization: each country has its own relations with USA,there is no common foreign policy,and hell, did i said EU is the good guys and US the bad?
Milosevic was a nationalistic scum but had to pay just because he was against the American,the same way Saddam had to pay not for being a tyrant but because he never asked permission to invade in Kuweit.
And about splitting countries:what's the easier target? Russia including all the former soviet democracies or a Russia surrounded by a bunch of countries with corrupted leaders with some of them enthroned by post modern coup d' etat? (Georgia, Ucrane)
i have no any problem with people who struggle for their freedom but the word freedom makes no sense to me since you fight a status quo just to put the authority of another state to rule your life

Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 10:17 pmPosts: 397Location: United States of America

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:30 am

corpus_vile wrote:

Singularity wrote:

corpus_vile wrote:

divide and conquer.the same old game:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them. USA gov never gave a shit about human rights and such things, but only rhetorically to excuse foreighn policy. the only reason for a new independent country is this:the smaller the countries, the easier to handle them and the same time another puppet willing to save the american interests in the geopolitical game.

I would think that is an unreasonably cynical view of the situation. While it is certainly true that US acts in its self-interest on several occasions under the guise of being a savior of democracy and freedom,in this case the human rights violation committed by Serbia is well accepted by the international community.

If the intention of the United States was just to split up a country, then one would have imagined protest from some EU nations. After all, didn't France and Germany, amongst several others, oppose invasion of Iraq? However, in this situation Kosovo got its recognition from these nations within 48 hours of declaring independence, an indication of the extent to which Serbia had lost its credibility.

Also remember NATO troops were deployed to prevent the Serbian atrocities on the ethnic Albanians in '99. Further, Milosevic was later found guilty on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Court of Justice. All this cannot be a grand plan hatched up by the West acting in unison to divide Serbia. In any case, how powerful and influential was united Serbia in contemporary world affairs for the West to try so hard?

and since when US policy became so sensitive to the atrocities? the answer is this:since has interests in a particular area. do you remember the 1 million dead leftists in Indonesia in 1965? do you remember the genocide in East Timor in 1974? or the gas attacks against the Kurds by Saddam right after the first Gulf war? and just because i have a cynical view of the situation, do i have to remind you the cynical statement of Clinton during the days of massacre in Rwanda? "USA is not going to involve in regions with no anerican interests". do you remember Kirkpatrick's statement about Taliban in 1996? do i have to remind you the atrocities of dictators in latin America, dictators supported by the us gov? where was in all these cases the merciful people who decided to help the Albanians in Kosovo?

I did admit that US has in the past acted (or refused to do so condoning the offence) to promote it own interests, did I not? In Kosovo too, it has just recognized the country's sovereignity. It did not fight for its independence or something like that.

Quote:

And please, stop thinking the EU as one concrete organization: each country has its own relations with USA,there is no common foreign policy,

Please read my post again. If anything, I have argued the exact opposite, ie some EU nations (NOT EU as a single unit) would have criticized the declaration.

Quote:

and hell, did i said EU is the good guys and US the bad?

Where in my post did I imply that you did?

Quote:

And about splitting countries:what's the easier target? Russia including all the former soviet democracies or a Russia surrounded by a bunch of countries with corrupted leaders with some of them enthroned by post modern coup d' etat? (Georgia, Ucrane)

How much difference do you think that these small nations are going to make to the overall strength of Russia? And wait, isn't it a big assumption that they are all going to stand together with Russia? These countries have a small military, no advanced weapons or aircraft and have severe economic problems to deal with that would make their aligning with Russsia an unlikely event. And you are also assuming that there is real concern in the US for another Russian offence in the future - another slim possibility.

Quote:

i have no any problem with people who struggle for their freedom but the word freedom makes no sense to me since you fight a status quo just to put the authority of another state to rule your life

If you are still talking about Kosovo here, I would again regard it an exaggeration. Kosovo is not Iraq. Are you seriously telling me that the US is going to completely control the government and people of Kosovo henceforth?
Sure, I can understand some pressure in the foreign policy department but US interfering in internal affairs sounds really remote. Again, how significant is Kosovo?